he's charismatic and good at what he does, people are attracted to that. people are also tired of the mainstream medias bull. he's kind of like a hero figure
What I don’t understand is that, charisma goes right out the window for me when I hear such complete bs to the detriment of people. His Sandy Hook conspiracy was so hurtful that someone like that can’t be “charismatic”, in my eyes.
I feel the problem is for the past 30 years or more, people have been drip fed a philosophy of distrusting of anyone in a position of authority. This has been amplified by many branches of the news media turning into "news entertainment" and feeding their audience versions of the news that their readers / viewers want to see.
The result is if a person in some position of authority states something and someone else disagrees, their response is not to argue a counterpoint but rather to imply some form of conspiratorial behaviour: E.g.
BLM etc. = Front for Antifa / Communist insurgency
Tea Party etc. = Front for neo-Nazi organisations
Politicians = Traitors who hate America
By framing anything that does not fit the individual's world view as some form of evil there is no requirement to produce a counter argument or even consider the proposal. It is evil - end of story. In this sense it is not surprising people like Alex Jones find a following.
I feel the problem is for the past 30 years or more, people have been drip fed a philosophy of distrusting of anyone in a position of authority. This has been amplified by many branches of the news media turning into "news entertainment" and feeding their audience versions of the news that their readers / viewers want to see.
The result is if a person in some position of authority states something and someone else disagrees, their response is not to argue a counterpoint but rather to imply some form of conspiratorial behaviour: E.g.
BLM etc. = Front for Antifa / Communist insurgency
Tea Party etc. = Front for neo-Nazi organisations
Politicians = Traitors who hate America
By framing anything that does not fit the individual's world view as some form of evil there is no requirement to produce a counter argument or even consider the proposal. It is evil - end of story. In this sense it is not surprising people like Alex Jones find a following.
It's a byproduct of income inequality.
The more things become unequal, the more that those who are on the wrong end of the stick will distrust the institutions that were supposed to protect them.
And I can't even totally say it's all unjustified -- why would anyone trust the banks after the subprime crisis?
Think about it: we've all been fed the American dream. Work hard, get a good job, and buy a house. That's nowhere near true or available to the average person anymore. Wages are almost completely stagnant other than tech and banking, jobs that are out of reach for a lot of people.
With all of that said, you are absolutely right that this schism is being manipulated and amplified by extreme bad-faith charlatans, who are sending the message that anyone who is on the wrong side is a victim, regardless of any choices they've themselves made, and that the institutions are conspiratorial against them.
I feel the problem is for the past 30 years or more, people have been drip fed a philosophy of distrusting of anyone in a position of authority. This has been amplified by many branches of the news media turning into "news entertainment" and feeding their audience versions of the news that their readers / viewers want to see.
The result is if a person in some position of authority states something and someone else disagrees, their response is not to argue a counterpoint but rather to imply some form of conspiratorial behaviour: E.g.
BLM etc. = Front for Antifa / Communist insurgency
Tea Party etc. = Front for neo-Nazi organisations
Politicians = Traitors who hate America
By framing anything that does not fit the individual's world view as some form of evil there is no requirement to produce a counter argument or even consider the proposal. It is evil - end of story. In this sense it is not surprising people like Alex Jones find a following.
You just continue to prove my point. We're almost 2.5 years into this thing and you still don't understand that the primary purpose of that type of mask is source control.
Source control? What are you even talking about?
You may recall the messaging that wearing a mask was to prevent you from spreading droplets to others, as opposed to protecting the wearer from others. Those of us in the biz call that source control. You're controlling the problem at the source.
Again, I understand that not everyone is a medical professional, but if you've made it 2.5 years into this particular pandemic and you don't understand that, it's because you're choosing to be ignorant.
The question that I find interesting is; "What is the evolutionary advantage to being a sucker (someone who is attracted to blowhards)?"
To most folks, blowhards are incredibly obvious and ridiculously absurd (not believable for even half a second). So, it seems to many of us that those who are attracted to blowhards are profoundly stupid.
And yet, a non-trivial fraction of the population exist as blowhard believers so it would appear that, if not now, then at least for a substantial fraction of our evolutionary history, believing in blowhards was the sensible (i.e., evolutionarily advantageous) thing to do.
evolutionarily, joining up with a big loud charismatic man was probably a decent way to ensure your chances at protection and reproduction. You aren't going to choose the quiet guy who could methodically reason his way through problems at his desk.
I think it might also be a means of restoring self-esteem. A certain sector of society feels disenfranchised and left-out, of lower esteem and general regard, in the public eye. The reasons contributing to why that is are probably numerous and fairly involved.
A charlatan, opportunist comes along and offers a grossly simplified explanation that ignores the myriad of causes and prevailing circumstances, and instead, blames it on an easily identifiable scape goat, like immigrants, the ruling elite, certain minorities, etc. And that is exactly what happened. It doesn't matter that it is a lie, what matters is that it restores their self-esteem because they are being told that someone did this to them, and they are to blame for their situation not themselves. They cling to that belief, and it makes them feel good again.
evolutionarily, joining up with a big loud charismatic man was probably a decent way to ensure your chances at protection and reproduction. You aren't going to choose the quiet guy who could methodically reason his way through problems at his desk.
I think it might also be a means of restoring self-esteem. A certain sector of society feels disenfranchised and left-out, of lower esteem and general regard, in the public eye. The reasons contributing to why that is are probably numerous and fairly involved.
A charlatan, opportunist comes along and offers a grossly simplified explanation that ignores the myriad of causes and prevailing circumstances, and instead, blames it on an easily identifiable scape goat, like immigrants, the ruling elite, certain minorities, etc. And that is exactly what happened. It doesn't matter that it is a lie, what matters is that it restores their self-esteem because they are being told that someone did this to them, and they are to blame for their situation not themselves. They cling to that belief, and it makes them feel good again.
It would greatly benefit people to learn about the Southern Strategy. If they did -- and had a conscience -- they'd never vote Republican again.
You may recall the messaging that wearing a mask was to prevent you from spreading droplets to others, as opposed to protecting the wearer from others. Those of us in the biz call that source control. You're controlling the problem at the source.
Again, I understand that not everyone is a medical professional, but if you've made it 2.5 years into this particular pandemic and you don't understand that, it's because you're choosing to be ignorant.
I feel the problem is for the past 30 years or more, people have been drip fed a philosophy of distrusting of anyone in a position of authority. This has been amplified by many branches of the news media turning into "news entertainment" and feeding their audience versions of the news that their readers / viewers want to see.
The result is if a person in some position of authority states something and someone else disagrees, their response is not to argue a counterpoint but rather to imply some form of conspiratorial behaviour: E.g.
BLM etc. = Front for Antifa / Communist insurgency
Tea Party etc. = Front for neo-Nazi organisations
Politicians = Traitors who hate America
By framing anything that does not fit the individual's world view as some form of evil there is no requirement to produce a counter argument or even consider the proposal. It is evil - end of story. In this sense it is not surprising people like Alex Jones find a following.
It's a byproduct of income inequality.
The more things become unequal, the more that those who are on the wrong end of the stick will distrust the institutions that were supposed to protect them.
And I can't even totally say it's all unjustified -- why would anyone trust the banks after the subprime crisis?
Think about it: we've all been fed the American dream. Work hard, get a good job, and buy a house. That's nowhere near true or available to the average person anymore. Wages are almost completely stagnant other than tech and banking, jobs that are out of reach for a lot of people.
With all of that said, you are absolutely right that this schism is being manipulated and amplified by extreme bad-faith charlatans, who are sending the message that anyone who is on the wrong side is a victim, regardless of any choices they've themselves made, and that the institutions are conspiratorial against them.
Except that isn't true. It takes a very low level of intelligence, though still far above the average Alex Jones listener, to become successful in life. It isn't that hard really.
The subprime crisis was problematic but it showed how stupid people are. Anyone who read their mortgage knew it was a bad deal. I was offered the same loan and said no thank you I'll take a 30-year fixed and I'll refine if I want to. I'm not going to deal with a balloon payments on an asset that isn't guaranteed to increase in value.
The banks were wrong for sure but the customer also decided they were going to ignore any instinct in sign terrible paper.
I feel the problem is for the past 30 years or more, people have been drip fed a philosophy of distrusting of anyone in a position of authority. This has been amplified by many branches of the news media turning into "news entertainment" and feeding their audience versions of the news that their readers / viewers want to see.
The result is if a person in some position of authority states something and someone else disagrees, their response is not to argue a counterpoint but rather to imply some form of conspiratorial behaviour: E.g.
BLM etc. = Front for Antifa / Communist insurgency
Tea Party etc. = Front for neo-Nazi organisations
Politicians = Traitors who hate America
By framing anything that does not fit the individual's world view as some form of evil there is no requirement to produce a counter argument or even consider the proposal. It is evil - end of story. In this sense it is not surprising people like Alex Jones find a following.
It's a byproduct of income inequality.
The more things become unequal, the more that those who are on the wrong end of the stick will distrust the institutions that were supposed to protect them.
And I can't even totally say it's all unjustified -- why would anyone trust the banks after the subprime crisis?
Think about it: we've all been fed the American dream. Work hard, get a good job, and buy a house. That's nowhere near true or available to the average person anymore. Wages are almost completely stagnant other than tech and banking, jobs that are out of reach for a lot of people.
With all of that said, you are absolutely right that this schism is being manipulated and amplified by extreme bad-faith charlatans, who are sending the message that anyone who is on the wrong side is a victim, regardless of any choices they've themselves made, and that the institutions are conspiratorial against them.
Not true that wages have been stagnant. It just isn’t true. But people will always believe they are victims and since most believe what you say, it is a factor.
I’d add movies and tv to the problem. So much filmed entertainment is based on ‘cops are bad, criminals are good’ and ‘the bad guy is always a rich guy in a nice suit’ and conspiracies are true…that is has altered the world view of Americans. they now have a bunch that the people in charge are actually bad guys.
and people like Alex Jones and trump play into that with talk of the deep state and the ‘swamp.’
You may recall the messaging that wearing a mask was to prevent you from spreading droplets to others, as opposed to protecting the wearer from others. Those of us in the biz call that source control. You're controlling the problem at the source.
Again, I understand that not everyone is a medical professional, but if you've made it 2.5 years into this particular pandemic and you don't understand that, it's because you're choosing to be ignorant.
Sad to say, this is correct.
Huh? You wear an N95 mask, you are protected from other people. That’s not pseudoscience. That’s what we were told and that’s true.
Huh? You wear an N95 mask, you are protected from other people. That’s not pseudoscience. That’s what we were told and that’s true.
unless I misunderstand the point being made here.
If you follow the thread up, someone posted a photo of some non-medical grade procedure mask lookalike with a warning on it that it will not protect you from viruses. Those types of masks are useful in the prevention of the spread of respiratory droplets.
You’re absolutely correct that an N95, if properly fitted, will protect you.
he's charismatic and good at what he does, people are attracted to that. people are also tired of the mainstream medias bull. he's kind of like a hero figure
What I don’t understand is that, charisma goes right out the window for me when I hear such complete bs to the detriment of people. His Sandy Hook conspiracy was so hurtful that someone like that can’t be “charismatic”, in my eyes.
The test for injury and culpability here is along the same as those might be applied in a defamation or libel case.
In tort law, the best defence is being correct.
Jones was not correct. But then he is not correct on a great many things. Which works in his favor.
If a figure is known to be polarizing, a reasonable person would not believe or trust what they say. If someone is known for saying outlandish things, they ought to be seen as unreliable - or perhaps as an entertainment figure.
But this trial has subtexts far beyond righting wrongs or compensating for real loss and damage - there is political agenda about punishing and silencing a fringe voice.
And, as Juries are prone to, unpredictable and outsized awards are made based on sympathies over facts. Which is why many states cap awards or require judicial tempering.
Don't get me wrong. I think Jones and anyone who takes him seriously is a nut job, but I have to acknowledge secondary forces beyond strict application of law.